The individual Southern leaders who rebelled should be punished. First, they should be taken out of government. If the ex-confederates stay in government, they will try to make laws that don’t abolish slavery, or don’t give African Americans full rights. Since many of them still believe in white supremacy, having them as leaders wouldn’t turn out well. This plan is better than President Johnson’s Reconstruction plan because even if they take an oath not to do anything against African Americans, their word can’t be trusted because they rebelled once and they could rebel again. Second, Southern rebels can be forgiven by the President and Congress, but they can never serve in office again. The Northerners will fill positions in Southern government …show more content…
military troops placed throughout the states to make sure the new laws are being enforced. President Johnson’s plan of the South running everything themselves is flawed because with absolutely no control from the North, there is no way to guarantee the laws are actually being followed. The troops will make a big impact on Reconstruction through the new laws being enforced. The individual states will not be punished for rebellion, rather only the Southern Rebel leaders. This means, people in the Southern states are citizens with rights and can vote. Individuals leading the rebellion are punished by not being able to vote. This is better than the Radical Republican’s plan of whole states being punished because through their plan everyone will feel too controlled, Southerners won’t feel like they’re part of the U.S., and the South might rebel again. All Southern Rebels can’t become part of the government until all laws of reconstruction have been thoroughly enforced throughout the whole country. This way, the North controls the government and laws about equality. President Jackson doesn’t think this should be the case, but if Southern rebels are let into government then we will never reach